As newspapers and news outlets are more frequently including photos to back their articles and stories, some are of the opinion that photographs are cannot be relied on as an authentic news source while some consider them to be irrefutable. I stand with the latter, however, I will be discussing both sides.
On the one hand, photographs are unreliable. The method of snapshots are always at the discretion of the one behind the lens. Taking pictures at and from certain angles, split seconds of change in facial expressions, which could be from a multitude of reasons, send an entirely different narrative, can be distorting and create an entirely false notion. For example, a woman, at different phases of her menstrual cycle, gets bloating, and a picture taken at a certain angle will seemingly make her to appear to be in her first trimester.
From the opposite perspective, photographs are a concrete, non abstract proof, hence they are irrefutable. For example, according to the jurisdiction and legislature of most countries, denying charges that accompanied with photographic evidence are almost impossible. They are, to a significantly large extent, substantial evidence to back up a story.
I am, of a certain, of the opinion that the ability and power of pictures to support articles can not be contended with.
In summary, however, caution should be applied to ensure that the narrative being portrayed aligns with facts.